4.3 Article

Comparison of direct 13C and indirect 1H-[13C] MR detection methods for the study of dynamic metabolic turnover in the human brain

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE
Volume 283, Issue -, Pages 33-44

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2017.08.004

Keywords

Proton; Carbon-13; Sensitivity; Spectral resolution; Decoupling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A wide range of direct C-13 and indirect H-1 -[13C] MR detection methods exist to probe dynamic metabolic pathways in the human brain. Choosing an optimal detection method is difficult as sequence-specific features regarding spatial localization, broadband decoupling, spectral resolution, power requirements and sensitivity complicate a straightforward comparison. Here we combine density matrix simulations with experimentally determined values for intrinsic H-1 and C-13 sensitivity, T-1 and T-2 relaxation and transmit efficiency to allow selection of an optimal C-13 MR detection method for a given application and magnetic field. The indirect proton-observed, carbon-edited (POCE) detection method provides the highest accuracy at reasonable RF power deposition both at 4T and 7T. The various polarization transfer methods all have comparable performances, but may become infeasible at 7T due to the high RF power deposition. 2D MR methods have limited value for the metabolites considered (primarily glutamate, glutamine and gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA)), but may prove valuable when additional information can be extracted, such as isotopomers or lipid composition. While providing the lowest accuracy, the detection of nonprotonated carbons is the simplest to implement with the lowest RF power deposition. The magnetic field homogeneity is one of the most important parameters affecting the detection accuracy for all metabolites and all acquisition methods. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available